The Trump administration faces a lawsuit from a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors over significant funding cuts for permanent housing aimed at individuals experiencing homelessness.
The Trump administration is once again embroiled in legal challenges, as a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors filed a lawsuit on Tuesday. The suit targets recent policy changes that impose new conditions and drastically reduce funding for permanent housing for individuals experiencing homelessness.
The lawsuit claims that the administration has unlawfully decreased the percentage of federal grant funding allocated to permanent housing from approximately 90% to as low as 30%. Additionally, it introduces new eligibility requirements that could further complicate access to these essential resources.
Leading the coalition is New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is seeking a court order to block what she describes as the “administration’s cuts and illegal new conditions” affecting the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care program funding.
“Communities across the country depend on Continuum of Care funds to provide housing and other resources to our most vulnerable neighbors,” James stated in a press release. “These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night. I will not allow this administration to cut off these funds and put vital housing and support services at risk.”
According to reports, more than half of the 2026 funding for HUD’s Continuum of Care program, which collaborates with local organizations to connect people experiencing homelessness to housing and resources, will be redirected from permanent housing assistance to temporary transitional housing assistance. This shift will come with new work or service requirements for recipients.
A spokesperson for HUD expressed disappointment over the lawsuit, stating, “HUD stands by its FY2025 Continuum of Care reforms.” The spokesperson further criticized the plaintiffs for what they termed a misuse of the courts, suggesting that the lawsuit serves a political agenda at the expense of homeless individuals, youth, and families currently living on the streets.
“Their use of the courts for political means seeks to prevent nearly $4 billion of aid from flowing nationwide to assist those in need,” the spokesperson added. “HUD intends to mount a vigorous defense to this meritless legal action.”
Permanent housing programs are designed to offer long-term stability without requiring participation in work programs or other services. This approach allows residents to focus on maintaining their housing and rebuilding their lives. Critics of the administration’s new policy argue that reallocating funds to transitional housing or imposing service requirements could destabilize current residents, potentially forcing them back into homelessness or reliance on emergency shelters.
Supporters of the policy, however, argue that linking funding to services or work expectations can promote self-sufficiency and ensure that resources are utilized efficiently. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between immediate stability and longer-term social outcomes.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for how federal housing funds are allocated and regulated at the national level. It underscores the critical roles that courts, state governments, and federal agencies play in shaping policy priorities and protecting vulnerable populations.
Beyond the legal ramifications, this dispute brings attention to the persistent challenges in addressing homelessness, emphasizing the importance of stable housing for social and economic well-being. It also reflects the complexities involved in implementing programs that cater to diverse communities with varying needs.
Source: Original article